Submitted by MarkDaMan on Wed, 04/19/2006 - 11:23am.
"Actually, homosexual 'marriage' IS illegal, per the most recent state constitution change."
No, actually it is not. Something not being recognized and something illegal are two different things. Marriage is defined as union between one man and one woman. It does not say that gays coupling together is illegal, nor does it say if a homosexual couple marry inside a church, their vows are illegal. What it does say is that the state will only recognize and extend marriage benefits on the terms provided, not that all other unions are illegal.
"Regarding if homosexual is a choice or not, the jury is still out - as far as I know there is still no definitive proof that it isn't a choice."
Do you choose, and I am assuming here, to be a heterosexual? I'm curious, if you choooose too, could you see yourself enjoying sex, life, love and a family with someone of the same sex? If you can't, why would you assume I can?
"It appears that Sam and you would like to make two people living together and whomever else lives with them a 'family' unit."
No, the issue wasn't that broad. We are talking about same-sex relationships. If you want to deal with extending family benefits (i.e. a daughter taking care of her elderly mother) that is a separate issue and needs to be addressed in its own forum by those that passionately want to see those benefits extended, not by someone like you who abuses apples and oranges to try and create an illusion.
"That type of 'beat-the-system' is but one of many reasons that benefits are extended to married couples (easier to verify)."
Only in your head is it easier to verify. If two people marry solely for the governmental benefits, being a hetero or a homo doesn't matter because you aren't marrying for love or commitment. I know of people I could marry solely for the benefits. However, I know of one person I want to marry because of love, and have been told no by a simple majority vote. However, the people of Portland did say yes, and by a fairly large margin, so this ordinance Sam is proposing doesn't impose anything on Portlanders they already haven't said (in mass) they think is fair.
"The statement should have read, "Social equality is not an inalienable right." Just as monetary equality is not an inalienable right. In the case of monetary it depends upon how hard you work and what you do to improve your lot in life. In the case of social, it depends upon what society wishes to encourage. Hetro couples have high odds of producing children, hence society continues. Homo couples have much lower chances of having children therefore incouraging those types of relationships does little to give a society longevity; hence society does not encourage those types of couplings."
Society wishes to encourage? Slaves, separate but equal, detention camps? Society has always been right when it comes to restricting personal freedoms so we should just allow society to continue to dictate rights of oppressed populations? Don't conservatives believe in less governmental intervention? Isn't creating new laws restricting people's rights expanding government's presence in our personal lives?
You are right on one point; homosexuals do have a lower chance of producing children. When I choose to raise a child in this world it will never be, "ooops, the condom broke, guess I need to quit school, work three jobs, and sell my car to pay for the pregnancy." It isn't that homosexuals can't have families, it is that a homosexual family is almost always planned. The gay couples that choose to have children will usually be financially stable, own their cars and homes, and have a strong commitment with their partner before adding children into the mix. When it comes to homosexual families, very rarely do mistakes just happen. If the mainstream society would plan their families the way we gay couples do, you would see less unwanted children left on firehouse steps, a lower abortion rate, less abuse from a parent that holds resentment, less abandonment of the family, and more engaged parents in child raising and early years education.
re: The City should extend its equal benefits law
"Actually, homosexual 'marriage' IS illegal, per the most recent state constitution change."
No, actually it is not. Something not being recognized and something illegal are two different things. Marriage is defined as union between one man and one woman. It does not say that gays coupling together is illegal, nor does it say if a homosexual couple marry inside a church, their vows are illegal. What it does say is that the state will only recognize and extend marriage benefits on the terms provided, not that all other unions are illegal.
"Regarding if homosexual is a choice or not, the jury is still out - as far as I know there is still no definitive proof that it isn't a choice."
Do you choose, and I am assuming here, to be a heterosexual? I'm curious, if you choooose too, could you see yourself enjoying sex, life, love and a family with someone of the same sex? If you can't, why would you assume I can?
"It appears that Sam and you would like to make two people living together and whomever else lives with them a 'family' unit."
No, the issue wasn't that broad. We are talking about same-sex relationships. If you want to deal with extending family benefits (i.e. a daughter taking care of her elderly mother) that is a separate issue and needs to be addressed in its own forum by those that passionately want to see those benefits extended, not by someone like you who abuses apples and oranges to try and create an illusion.
"That type of 'beat-the-system' is but one of many reasons that benefits are extended to married couples (easier to verify)."
Only in your head is it easier to verify. If two people marry solely for the governmental benefits, being a hetero or a homo doesn't matter because you aren't marrying for love or commitment. I know of people I could marry solely for the benefits. However, I know of one person I want to marry because of love, and have been told no by a simple majority vote. However, the people of Portland did say yes, and by a fairly large margin, so this ordinance Sam is proposing doesn't impose anything on Portlanders they already haven't said (in mass) they think is fair.
"The statement should have read, "Social equality is not an inalienable right." Just as monetary equality is not an inalienable right. In the case of monetary it depends upon how hard you work and what you do to improve your lot in life. In the case of social, it depends upon what society wishes to encourage. Hetro couples have high odds of producing children, hence society continues. Homo couples have much lower chances of having children therefore incouraging those types of relationships does little to give a society longevity; hence society does not encourage those types of couplings."
Society wishes to encourage? Slaves, separate but equal, detention camps? Society has always been right when it comes to restricting personal freedoms so we should just allow society to continue to dictate rights of oppressed populations? Don't conservatives believe in less governmental intervention? Isn't creating new laws restricting people's rights expanding government's presence in our personal lives?
You are right on one point; homosexuals do have a lower chance of producing children. When I choose to raise a child in this world it will never be, "ooops, the condom broke, guess I need to quit school, work three jobs, and sell my car to pay for the pregnancy." It isn't that homosexuals can't have families, it is that a homosexual family is almost always planned. The gay couples that choose to have children will usually be financially stable, own their cars and homes, and have a strong commitment with their partner before adding children into the mix. When it comes to homosexual families, very rarely do mistakes just happen. If the mainstream society would plan their families the way we gay couples do, you would see less unwanted children left on firehouse steps, a lower abortion rate, less abuse from a parent that holds resentment, less abandonment of the family, and more engaged parents in child raising and early years education.